Reply to Mr. Macfarlane

To the Addison Eagle: Mr. Macfarlane, as you mentioned in last weeks Letters to the Editor column in the Eagle, you are not perplexed by my logic; you are absolutely flummoxed. Let me sift your letter of April 18 in which you wrote, ...just how deeply buried in the sand he keeps his head. [] Can he really be oblivious of the fact that oil and natural gas will run out? While my head may be buried in oil-rich tar sands, I looked west to North Dakota and Montana at what is confirmed a massive oil reserve in an area the locals have nicknamed the Bakken, which stretches across North Dakota, Montana and southeastern Saskatchewan. [] The reported 3.65 billion barrels of oil mean estimate is for undiscovered oil only, and doesnt include known oil, such as reserves. And in Brazil: Brazilian officials noted reports of a vast, deep-water oil field containing as much as 33 billion barrels...Brazil Hints at Major Oil Field: Offshore Supply Could Be Worlds Third-Largest, Reports...worlds third-largest field, according to his spokesman, Luiz Fernando Manso Mr. Macfarlane, you claim I wrote we should use more energy, hence providing more revenue to the suppliers so they can better maintain the supply infrastructure. I never wrote we should use more energy. I did say legislated rate suppression and conservation restricts necessary funds to maintain the infrastructure. The effect of capital shortage produces a higher tariff for less product. Alternatively, the breakdown of the infrastructure will occur; witness the condition of Vermont bridges and roads. Putting transportation tax money into feel good social programs, instead of where it should have gone, produced the degeneration. Our economic system is predicated on growth. If you dislike the system, you might wish to explore other countries. One may suit your ethos more closely. Who anointed the eco-community saviors of the world? The green folks believe only they have the answers. It must be that you are a small minority; otherwise, everyone would adopt these fantastic green ideas. Instead, the population receives them by diktat. The whole enviro-movement is redolent of fascism. Think not? Look up the connotation of the term. For only one reason is alternative energy so named, it fell into disuse because it was not reliable, durable, or easily produced. Reversing techo-progression does not alter these facts. If you believe in alternative forms, live your life by that modality. I have no desire to live in a third world style. Emotion never trumps logic. The constant discovery of new petroleum fields puts your scarcity notion to rout. In fact, some scientists believe oil might be a product of the heat from the Earths core, manufactured on a constant basis. They wonder how fields once pronounced dry; now they produce oil again. The numbers you quote on Big Oils profits are gross not net. Kept profits were $0.09 on a dollar. Banks and brokerages keep $0.38 of each dollar, while Microsoft keeps $0.48. Obscene profits fall into the category of John Edwards keeping the $155million from class action lawsuits; the Clintons $109 million since 2001. Is Obamas wife getting a $150,000 annual raise because he won a senate seat? Kennedy and Gore investments in Big Oil are ok? Since they keep them offshore, avoiding taxes, does this receive approbation in your eyes? Paul Ehrlichs accuracy is worse than a broken clock; hes never been right. Only the very baffled believe in the zero sum game. That makes them losers. You neglected to let us lesser mortals know how large a premium you pay to GMP for green energy. Readers want to know that you follow your precepts. Ed Mann, Waltham